- Posts: 55
- Comments: 507
- Overall: 562
Seems you’ve missed one important part in your “reading and understanding” where I have constantly stated; my testing at HV was to see how fast a TERNARY alloy cast bullet could be pushed while maintaining 2 moa or less accuracy (10 shot groups) across and extended range (300 yards and possibly 400 yards) with linear group dispersion. Now if we add Cu to the ternary alloy then we no longer have a ternary alloy do we?
I’ll also point out I have found that point which appears to be between 2950 and 3100+ fps. It was in that range that the GCs started coming off and accuracy deteriorated beyond 2 moa. Not only I found that but Bjorn did also. We found that by actually building rifles capable of such and actually shooting. We did not find that by pontificating on 3 separate many, many page threads on CBF about esoteric variables we can do nothing about. How much force is put on the edge of the lands is an example of a totally BS esoteric variable “fact” you can do absolutely nothing about. With any given rifle, whether it be a slow twist rifle or a “stock” rifle with a “fast” (10″) twist it is what it is and you can’t change it……you can only deal with it. Same with the RPM threshold; it will always be there. You can move it up or down but it’s still there and when it’s crossed accuracy begins to go south. All of this has been well documented with numerous tests, data and supporting groups posted on numerous threads on CBF, CBA and the NOE forums.
So, to be blunt, the objective with ternary alloys was reached when the GCs started coming off. I used several different alloys and none performed as well as Lyman #2 alloy. All of them lost GCs. Some of them (the “softer” ones with less than 2% tin and/or antimony) lost GCs and accuracy much sooner than others. I was surprised the #2 alloy actually did better than linotype in keeping it’s GC s on to a little higher velocity. As I’ve also stated in my writings that once the objective (highest velocity holding 2 moa or less) was realized I backed off to find the highest velocity with the best accuracy. So far that has been shown to be 2900 fps with consistent moa accuracy for 10 shot groups to 300 yards. At this stage I am seeking the best accuracy at 100 and 200 yards.
I was told by numero uno over at CBF that he didn’t care what was right or wrong, he only cared about everyone getting along. How are we going to improve any aspect of cast bullet shooting if we aren’t allowed to determine the right from the wrong, the facts from the myth, the truth from the BS and to seek to separate the real cause of what’s holding us back from the pontifications? With any given rifle and given mould using a ternary alloyed cast bullet there are things we can not change nor do anything about. We just have to deal with those and apply our efforts to those things we can effect in a positive manner. Sitting around singing kumbaya is not going to advance cast bullet shooting beyond the “can I shoot a GC bullet without the GC” stage which is where CBF seems to be locked into.
Goodsteel has asked you to provide “references, tests and data” to back up your hypothesis. I don’t disagree or agree with them until I see the documentation requested. When I began discussing controlling RPM and that it may be the root cause of cast bullet inaccuracy at a certain level I was severely criticized because I did not provide any “proof”. Subsequently I have provided the results of test after test after test in a multitude of rifles and cartridges. I have spent my own considerable money to get equipment to measure what was actually happening when a cartridge was fired. Not one single test has disproven the RPM Threshold’s existence or the adverse affect crossing it has on accuracy. All the dissidents have pontificated to no end but have any of them actually told anyone step by step how to shoot higher velocity in a “stock” rifle with a 10″ twist? Hell, they couldn’t even define what HV was. Yet when Goodsteel, Bjorn, Sgt Mike and I defined what HV was to us several years ago they ridiculed us because our definition didn’t include moa or less accuracy. Yet in their last thread they couldn’t agree on less than 3 moa………and could even say what “high velocity” actually was. Yet they ridiculed us. Have any of them actually posted a moa group of 10 shots or even 5 shots at an actual 2400+ fps in any of those 3 past threads? No they haven’t. Did they actually provide any actual test groups close to 1 moa accuracy at 2400+ fps……no they didn’t. I will give you credit for actually posting some of the groups you have shot in those threads though. Has any single member of that forum come forth with an example of HV cast bullet accuracy based on the pontifications in those threads? If so I sure haven’t seen any. In other words after 3 many, many page threads of pontifications on the subject they have advanced no one’s ability. Well HV (2300- 2400 fps) accuracy with cast bullets out of any 10″ twist rifle isn’t rocket science but if you ignore the RPM Threshold it will bite you. I showed them how to do it with lots of detail, data and groups on the “HV with 10 and 12″ twist” thread on the NOE forum posted well before the 2nd and 3rd HV threads were posted on the CBF. It was not hard to do but then what do I know…..except how to really shoot HV with cast bullets.
The point is that here on this forum only documented facts count. They are documented through reputable references, data, sufficient sample size groups and repeatability. As to adding Cu to the ternary alloy I have already tried that. The problem is bullet shrinkage in the mould gives an unacceptable consistency in bullet quality. It also would require another 30 XCB mould cut to drop a .3105 bullet with that alloy. The several quarto alloys I’ve tried have required a 30 caliber mould that will drop a .313 bullet when cast of #2 alloy for a quarto alloyed bullet to drop at .3105 – .311. I have an older 311466 and a MP 311-180 that do just that. However the bullet consistency is so poor that out of 200 – 300 cast bullets I find only 50 +/- are left after visual culling and weight sorting. Even then they have not proven superior (not even close) to the 30 XCB cast of #2 alloy. Since my test objective accuracy criteria now is 1 moa or less accuracy at 2600 – 2900 fps with 10 shot groups any alloy with Cu in it just isn’t making the grade.
However, if you can prove me wrong I more than willing to admit such, based on proof. I am always interested in learning and advancing. Let me use a cliché here; “at the end of the day” it doesn’t matter why the GCs come off. The point is they do come off and that (2950 – 3100 fps) is the highest velocity I’ve been able to attain while maintaining 2 moa accuracy or less with a TERNARY cast bullet. So please prove me wrong.